The role of subversive humour at the workplace

by

Robert OrzannaStudent ID: 2902913

Submitted to the Faculty of Managementin the paper Individuals, Behaviour & Work

The University of AucklandAuckland, New Zealand

August 2011

Abstract

This essay analyses three main functions of subversive humour at the workplace-challenging power relations, emhpasising group distinctions and re-definingreality- and outlines its implications for organisations. Research findings ofthe last years will be thereby used to emphasise the overall importance of sub-versive humour in organisations.

i

Contents

Abstract i

1 Introduction 1

2 Mainpart 1

2.1 General thoughts on humour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.2 The role of subversive humour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.3 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 The implications for organisations 3

3.1 Positive effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.2 Negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 Conclusion 6

References 7

ii

1 Introduction

“Every joke is a tiny revolution”. These are the words of the British writer George

Orwell who described the subversive potential of humour in his book “An age like

this”. But does humour, the ability to laugh that is normally considered to be desir-

able and positive in social interactions, really impose a threat to human behaviour

and relationships and if so, what consequences does that evoke in an organisational

context?

This essay attempts to understand the role of subversive humour by analysing its

basic concept based on humour research, examining its three main functions in the

workplace context and finally outlining the implications for organisations.

2 Mainpart

2.1 General thoughts on humour

Humour plays an important role in our social life and interactions as it is an inherent

part of our daily verbal and non-verbal communication, aimed to raise a laugh and en-

tertain (Brown 1987). Thereby humour is not only intended to amuse but also serves

different essential functions. That way, it brings people together and increases the

group cohesion between social members, reduces stress, facilitates creative thinking

and relieves tensions (Collinson 1988). Overall humour is seen as positive, especially

in a workplace context where all the functions above are considered to be desirable.

It is therefore not surprising that increased research focuses on humour as a tool of a

managerial perspective to support the achievement of corporate objectives (Holmes

2006, Romero 2006).

2.2 The role of subversive humour

But is humour only positive or do we have to consider another side, a “dark side” of

humour (Ackroyd 1999, Schnurr 2008)? This dark side refers to a subversive potential

1

of humour that challenges the status quo in an amusing and socially accepted way

(Holmes 2002). Thereby mostly verbal and non-verbal expressions of teasing, irony

and satire (Taylor 2003) are used to express disagreement with a current situation.

Considering the workplace context disagreement may reach from frustration or dis-

sent with decision making and established practices to the point of questioning and

undermining power relations.

2.3 Functions

In the following, we further want to understand what makes subversive humour, es-

pecially at the workplace, so valueable and in which situations it is used to serve

a certain purpose considering three main functions. Therefore we need to take into

account that every expression of humour is situational and can only be properly in-

terpreted considering the context and the impacts it has on the involved participants.

For this the analysis is based on Duncan’s model (Duncan 1989) who groups the

participants into three types: the initiator (the teller of the joke), the butt (the indi-

vidual or subject who is made fun of) and the target (the individual and the wider

audience to whom the humorous expression is dedicated).

Subversive humour challenges power relations. One of the most important

function of humour is its ability to undermine status differences. In an organisational

context subordinates can express their critique and admonish their superior in a

safe and socially acceptable way, using ironic quips or jocular abuse to a justifiable

extent. Socially acceptable thereby means that the superior cannot react properly, i.e.

sanction the behaviour of the subordinate without losing face and being considered

as not humorous enough (Plester 2008). Thus, all he can do is to either ignore the

quip or take the chance to respond likewise humorously (Holmes 2002).

This humorous respond may be in particular relevant for those superiors called

“Benign Bureaucrats” who in fact own formal authority through their status but

are not respected by other group members or subordinates (Duncan 1989). Likewise

2

they can criticise without offending whilst still ensuring that the underlying meaning

is received.

Subversive humour emphasises group distinctions. What makes humour

so powerful is that it let people share a laugh together, thereby relieves tensions and

eventually fosters a sense of unity by increasing the group cohesion. However when

it comes with a subversive intention, the initiator wants to intentionally emphasise

the distance between him and the butt by creating boundaries to underline that the

critique against the butt is appropriate and has to be taken seriously (Holmes 2002).

By doing so, he eventually creates distinct groups within an organisation, consisting

of those who agree with the critique or at least can laugh about it and those who

follow the position of the butt.

Subversive humour re-defines reality. Using humorous actions, individuals

cannot only criticise and express their dissent but also re-define the status quo showing

another more desirable reality. Thus, humour functions as a powerful but polite

instrument to achieve a certain goal (Holmes 2002). A worker doing routine work

may thereby humorously outline a more diversified workplace whereas a superior

may use it to show alternatives to established practices, such as less bureaucratic

processes. It is especially for the ones with power who benefit from using humour to

re-define organisational reality as they do not risk to lose their authority in front of

their subordinates, be made responsible by other managers or endanger the stability

of the organisational system which could be the case if they explicitly vote for certain

changes within organisations (Schnurr 2008).

3 The implications for organisations

In the section above we outlined how humour is used to subvert the status quo and

point out another reality. The important question arises: Does the organisation

accept and pick up critique or eventually ignore it?

3

3.1 Positive effects

Paying attention to subversive humour enables organisations to discover serious short-

comings. They may not only be related to intra-organisational difficulties but also

refer to certain problems with the outside world and affect operative business, in-

cluding customers and suppliers. Coming along with the ability for re-definition,

possible solutions are also often expressed by casual organisational members which

in the end may even effect the strategical decision-making process of an organisa-

tion. Considering this, it is desirable for organisations to have humour even in its

challenging and subversive form to recognise changed circumstances and adapt the

organisation to maintain a healthy and competitive organisational system. However,

not every organisational member has the heart to express critique at the workplace,

neither in a humorous way, fearing negative effects such as limitations of management

advancements. Nor may they be personally interested in playing the jester to voice

all corporate dissent (Plester 2008). However, it are especially organisational mem-

bers such the jester who create or are involved in most of the humorous activities in

organisations and are respected from a brought number of the membership. For or-

ganisations it is therefore essential to foster an environment that explicitly welcomes

humour at the workplace and accepts direct criticism on every level, from the casual

worker over the jester to the upper executives. But how could that be practically

achieved?

A practical implication is to create flat hierarchical structures. By reducing the

status differences, those organisational members who initially did not have the heart

then can express their dissent without fearing negative effects from formal authority.

However flat structures are limited to certain sizes of organisations and hierarchy

levels, at least the form of a management board, therefore often inevitable. Hence

essentially executives need to exemplify a ‘transformational” leadership style paying

attention to the individual, its needs and thereby let room for changes (Bass 1994).

A transformational leadership also requires a supervisor to accept critique against

4

him or the organisation. It may be also helpful to reduce the boundaries between

management and the subordinates, to overshadow the formal authority of execu-

tives and seem them more approachable by allowing them to self-defeate and ridicule

themselves (Romero 2006).

Another approach is supported by Srivastva (Srivastva 1988). In his work on the

integrity of executives he suggests to establish an “antiorganisation” within organisa-

tions, a place of free saying where organisational members are explicitly encouraged

to undermine the established system, make fun of its norms and practices and value

it from a safe distance.

3.2 Negative effects

Paying attention to subversive humour allows an ongoing evaluation process that can

foster an organisational culture with which most of the members can identify with

and enables the chance to react on serious shortcomings. But what if organisations

miss this chance to listen and permanently ignore the critique faced to them?

Over time organisational members may not feel perceived and start to share a

collective identity of similar values and attitudes to intentionally represent a counter-

culture within an organisation which conflict with corporate values, attitudes and

objectives. In this sense counter-cultures function as a boundary to defeat the external

threat imposed by other groups or the organisation as a whole (Sherif 1961).

Sharing values different to the corporate one’s can eventually impact the individual

work behaviour. Individuals may resign and become unmotivated, i.e. spending time

on non-work related tasks, or behave even in a destructive way and situationally harm

the organisation, i.e. resulting in problematic ways of customer treating (Taylor and

Bain 2003). Due to the collective feeling and increased risk-proclivity there may

also arise a sort of activism, using subversive humour to permanently tease overall

management and express a collective social protest (Marjolein 2007). Such activism

does not only then take advantage of the situation but may also use humour as

5

a tactical instrument to re-define reality in the long-term purpose of the specific

counter-culture.

Such actions clearly outline that subversive humour is always on the edge between

challenging practices and endangering an organisational system. Especially this is the

case when humorous actions are used to offend and discriminate individual members

or groups within organisations, based on ethnical and sexual humour. Such humorous

actions have the ability to destroy an organisational culture and can be considered as

one of the most destructive forms subversive humour. But even ethnical and sexual

humour does not necessarily have to be subversive. According to Mennell and LaFave

(Mennell 1976) trust is an important factor which influences whether such humour is

seen as humorous rather than offending.

Following that, organisations basically have two options. They can either con-

struct boundaries and force rules to forbid the use of discriminating humour or create

an organisation-wide feeling of trust and togetherness to modify the threat of offense.

4 Conclusion

To conclude, humour at the workplace is conducive in all its forms and for all its

members. What is named subversive humour is in fact an effective way to express

critique, giving the potential to create an alternative reality which at first does not

pose a real threat to the current status quo as long as the underlying incongruity is

going to be resolved. Thus, the subversive potential of humour cannot be avoided but

the actual subversion can, by trying to resolve the incongruity. Organisations need

to bear in mind that creating and maintaining a trustworthy environment including

certain boundaries can facilitate the use of non-offending and justifiable humorous

actions which eventually contribute to the well-being of the overall organisation.

In the words of George Orwell we can state that every joke is truly only a tiny

revolution and not every joke subverts the current reality but at least it can display

a possible image of an alternative, more desirable reality.

6

ReferencesAckroyd, Thompson (1999) Only joking? From subculture to counter-culture in orga-

nizational relations. (London: SAGE Publications)

Bass, Avolio (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformationalleadership. (London: SAGE Publications)

Brown, Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press)

Collinson (1988) ‘Engineering humor: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floorrelations.’ Organization Studies 9(2), 181–199

Duncan, Feisal (1989) ‘No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace.’Organizational Dynamics pp. 18–30

Holmes, Marra (2002) ‘Over the edge? subversive humor between colleagues andfriends.’ International Journal of Humor Research 15(1), 65–87

(2006) ‘Humor and leadership style.’ Humor 19(2), 119–138

Marjolein (2007) ‘Humour and social protest: An introduction.’ International Reviewof Social History 20(S15), 1–20

Mennell, LaFave (1976) ‘Does ethnic humor serve prejudice?’ Journal of Communi-cation 26, 116–123

Plester, Orams (2008) ‘Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three new zealandit companies.’ International Journal of Humor Research 21(3), 253–281

Romero, Cruthirds (2006) ‘The use of humor in the workplace.’ The Academy ofManagement 20(2), 58–69

Schnurr, Rowe (2008) ‘The “dark side” of humour. an analysis of subversive humour.’Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4(1), 109–130

Sherif, Harvey, White Hood (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the RobbersCave experiment. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange)

Srivastva (1988) Executive Integrity: The Search for High Human Values in Organi-zational Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)

Taylor, Bain (2003) ‘’subterranean worksick blues’: Humour as subversion in two callcentres.’ Organization Studies 24(9), 1487–1509

7